Exceptional Proff only

530

Introduction

 

Topics to be covered include:

· What is policy analysis?

· Policy analysis frameworks

· Steps in policy analysis

· Dimensions for policy analysis

· Methods of policy analysis

· Policy analysis players

· Think tank studies

· Program implementation and evaluation

 

We start this lesson with an introduction to policy analysis. This process is conducted primarily during the policy formulation stage. Technically, policy analysis is not meant to determine policy decisions. Instead, it shapes the discussion surrounding the decision by providing possible alternatives. Policy analysis is part science and part political judgment, relying equally on quantitative logic and value-based intuition.

What Is Policy Analysis?

A term that is difficult to define comprehensively, in essence policy analysis is the process of identifying alternative policies and deciding which one is most likely to accomplish a certain set goals in regards to the situation. This systemic investigation of alternative policy options weighs evidence for and against each option in order to inform the public deliberation and debate process. Its primary function is to collect and contribute relevant information and impartial assessments in the policymaking process. As an activity that impacts both the societal and political realms, policy analysis is more than just decision making. Large numbers of citizens are impacted by policy analysis, and its process and results involve a number of interested parties.

Different methods of policy analysis make it possible to provide recommendations as to what the preferred policy approach to achieve economic, social, or political goals should be. Policy analysis also allows for the evaluation of existing policies so that recommendations may be made on how new policies or changes in policy can lead to improvement. Policy analysis is an extremely important tool in the implementation and development of public policy.

As public policy is developed, policy analysis guides the decision-making process as the most effective policy for achieving the established goal is crafted. A systematic approach is used to evaluate policy options and to determine how they would address the goals and objectives that policymakers deal with. The outcome of this process provides a basis for recommendations for how to implement the most appropriate policy for achieving the established goals. The policy analyst often employs quantitative and qualitative research and models such as the process, institutional, and rational models to analyze and compare existing policies and to recommend potential modifications. This scientific approach indicates that policy analysis is an effective tool that can all but guarantee an effective and efficient public policy. Does that last statement ring true to you? Think of reasons why this is not simply a scientific process – although it is set up to be. What are the other factors that play into the evaluation of a policy? How might they influence the outcome?

Policy analysis also plays an instrumental role during the policy implementation process by identifying opportunities for improvement. The process can be perceived as a performance measurement tool for public policies, providing a basis for policy modification by identifying the policy’s weakness, strengths and areas that need improvement. As public policy is implemented, policy analysis can serve as a tool for corrective action by identifying aspects of the policy that are in need of change.

Policy Analysis Frameworks

· CHAMBERS’ FRAMEWORK

Many authors who have written on policy analysis have created frameworks of policy analysis, which generally identify the key policy elements that are crucial to understanding and evaluating the policy. These frameworks often employ different elements and approaches.

In 2000, Donald E. Chambers formulated a framework that highlights the importance of looking at a policy’s analytical description by focusing on its key elements, which include:

· Goals and objectives

· Forms of benefits or services delivered

· Entitlement (eligibility) rules

· Administrative or organizational structure for service delivery

· Financing method

· Interactions among the foregoing elements (Chambers, 2000, p.71)

Chambers’ framework stresses that simply describing the policy elements is not enough, and that value-based judgments about the policies at hand must be made as well. The “fit” of the policy elements to the social problem, the adequacy, equity, and efficiency of policy consequences for clients and program participants, and other criteria unique to a single policy element should all be considered in this process to make a value-based judgment of a policy and to determine which direction the policy should be taken.

GILBERT AND TERRELL’S FRAMEWORKNeil Gilbert and Paul Terrell developed another policy analysis framework in 2002, which has many similarities to Chambers’ version. Gilbert and Terrell’s framework is based on the idea that policy formation involves dimensions of choice, and that it looks at the range of alternatives available when forming and implementing policy. The following four questions describe these “dimensions of choice” and how they relate to policy analysis:

· What are the bases of social allocations?

· What are the types of social provisions to be allocated?

· What are the strategies for the delivery of these provisions?

· What are the ways to finance these provisions? (Gilbert and Terrell, 2002, p.60)

Each dimension addressed in Gilbert and Terrell’s framework of policy analysis corresponds with one or more of Chambers’ key elements. The first dimension, basis of social allocation, asks the questions of who benefits from the policy and how they benefit—also addressed in Chambers’ second and third elements. The third dimension, the delivery system’s design, involves service providers and consumers and their organization—the administrative or organizational structure for service delivery.

·

DOBELSTEIN’S FRAMEWORKAlso in 2002, Andrew W. Dobelstein created a framework based on the idea that policy analysis guides policymaking activity to appropriate conclusions. Dobelstein’s framework included the following elements:

· Identifying, understanding, or clarifying the problem; since the primary purpose of policy is to resolve problems, problem identification must be an important component of policy analysis.

· Identifying the location for policy decision; if the location is understood, that place will determine the character of analysis and policy. An example is found in federal and state policies and how they potentially differ.

· Specifying possible solutions (alternatives); exploring alternatives is helpful in understanding the choices available for addressing the problem’s normative issues.

· Estimating or predicting the impact (outcomes) of those solutions on different populations; the exploration of the impact and unintended effects of social policy can be found by examining the alternatives. (Dobelstein, 2002, p. 76)

·

POPPLE AND LEIGHNINGER’S FRAMEWORKIn 2004, Philip Popple and Leslie Leighninger (2004) formulated a policy analysis framework that embedded that of Gilbert and Terrell into a single element focusing on all dimensions of policy and that focused selectively on different elements based on the policy analyzed and the reason for the policy analysis. Popple and Leighninger’s framework includes the following elements:

· Delineation and overview of the policy under analysis

· Historical analysis

· Social analysis

· Economic analysis

· Political analysis

· Policy/program evaluation

· Current proposals for policy reform (Popple and Leighninger, 2004, p. 35-37)

While these four frameworks provide a helpful overview of what is involved in policy analysis, they are far from being the only models employed. Some frameworks are short and contain only a few elements, while others are far longer and very complex. Some frameworks emphasize understanding the problem, while others focus on how the analysis can provide a solution while only scratching the surface of the actual problem at hand. The choice of framework largely depends on the analyst’s goals, objectives, values, and needs.

·

Steps in Policy Analysis

‹ 1/4 ›

· Step 1: Define and Analyze the Problem

The first step in conducting a policy analysis is to define and analyze the problem. What is the nature of the problem? How did it arise, and what were its major causes? How serious is this problem, and why is it important to deal with it as a matter of public policy? Defining the problem with precision will allow a more effective quality of communication between those who are trying to solve it.

Operational measures are used to provide statistics on a particular problem. The use of these operational measures and the quantitative data carries the risk of inaccurate data and invalid measurements that do not truly capture the problem. Problem definition can also become politicized, with each side in a dispute defining the problem its own way and citing studies to support its own argument.

Step 2: Construct Policy Alternatives

The second step is to construct policy alternatives. What are the realistic options for dealing with the problem? The possibilities are many; modifying a present policy, or choosing a different one, is one option. Another would involve strengthening the existing policy through stronger regulations or penalties. Current programs may be funded at a higher level in order to improve research capabilities, strengthen enforcement, or provide a greater degree of public information. Market-based incentives may be offered, or different institutional approaches (such as re-organizing bureaucratic structures) may be taken.

Step 3: Develop Evaluative Criteria

The third step is to develop  evaluative criteria . What course of action is most suitable considering equity, efficiency, and effectiveness?  What course of action is the most socially, politically, and administratively feasible? It is important to choose criteria that fit a given policy area and set of circumstances. In order to establish clear focused standards, criteria must be as explicit as possible. Such standards will allow policy actors to rank policy alternatives in the order of their preference. For an example of some of those standards, see the General Accounting Office’s  Report to Congressional Committees on Program Evaluation.

Criteria used for this purpose may include costs, benefits, risks, uncertainty, political feasibility, administrative feasibility, equity, freedom, legality, and constitutionality. However, the most commonly used criterion is a policy’s effectiveness. In public policy, effectiveness refers to the ability of a policy to reach stated goals and objectives; in regard to existing programs, it also refers to the evaluation of expected results and policy outcomes and whether they have been reached through that policy. A broader view of effectiveness recognizes that programs have multiple goals and that these programs may succeed at some goals while failing at others.

Step 4: Assess Policy Alternatives

The fourth step is to assess policy alternatives. Which course of action is most likely to produce the desired outcomes? What evidence is available? Essentially, in this step of the process the decision is made concerning which of the several alternatives that have been constructed is most likely to produce the outcome sought by the policymakers. The selection of the “best” alternative may often involve tradeoffs, as there is rarely a single perfect solution.

The final step is to draw conclusions from the results of the analysis. Many scientific and professional studies do not recommend a particular policy action; instead, they summarize their findings concerning the merits of policy proposals that are in competition and allow policymakers and the public to choose for themselves based on the information.

Dimensions for Policy Analysis

The effects and implementation of the policy across a period of time, or the dimensions of the analysis, are sometime known as the durability of the policy analysis. These dimensions determine how well a policy analysis continues to produce positive results into the future.

EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness , or how well a policy works or might work, is based on assumptions and future projections that may or may not reach fruition. In determining how effective competing policy alternatives may be expected to be, policy analysis is an excellent resource to draw upon.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Unintended consequences  include outcomes that were not intended by the policy, as their name suggests. These can be positive or negative and can include unexpected benefits (windfalls), drawbacks (which occur in tandem with the intended consequences), and perverse results (incidents where a policy’s implementation goes completely awry and the resultant condition becomes worse than before).

EQUITY Equity  involves diverse concerns that may include protection of individual rights and the issue of how policy costs and benefits will be distributed among population groups. When taking equity into consideration, policymakers must think about what constitutes a fair proposal and how all members of society will benefit from a program.

COSTS Costs  measured in relation to benefits constitute a way of justifying government actions on the basis of economic concepts. If more money is spent on one activity or program than is necessary, this will create fewer resources for other activities and programs. From an economic standpoint, the first priority in policymaking should be that the benefits of an action outweigh the costs.

FEASIBILITY Feasibility  asks the question of whether the policy is actually possible from a political, social, and economic standpoint. If a policy is deemed feasible by a policy analyst but immediately provokes a public outcry when implemented, its long-term durability will be questionable without considerable changes in either public opinion or policy.

ACCEPTABILITY Acceptability  is a measure of the extent to which elected officials, administrators, and other policy actors give a policy change their support. By identifying formal and informal policy actors and determining their position on the issue involved, the feasibility of the policy can be estimated but with limited accuracy.

 

Methods of Policy Analysis

As is the case with policy analysis frameworks, different scholars and experts have broken down the methodology of policy analysis in different ways. According to Michael Kraft and Scott Furlong, most methods of policy analysis can be divided into the following groups (Kraft and Furlong, 2013, p.195-215).

· ECONOMIC APPROACHES

Economic approaches  may include a cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, or risk assessment. Policy analysts identify all long and short-term costs and benefits, measuring those that are tangible in dollar amounts while estimating intangible costs and benefits in other manners. Finally, they aggregate, or total, the costs and benefits of a policy. Such a method has its limitations; the selection of which costs and benefits to include may involve making a judgment call, and where intangible human costs are concerned, any estimate is subjective and imprecise. A discount rate allows analysts to determine the value of future benefits at the current time—but even the choice of which rate to use can become a political issue!

Where a cost-benefit analysis is not feasible, a cost-effectiveness analysis may be used. This type of analysis does not place dollar values on intangible benefits, but may arrive at a dollar value for a human life when comparing different policy alternatives (in other words, which one would result in the maximum lives saved at the lowest cost).

A risk assessment is similar to a cost-benefit analysis in that it identifies, estimates, and evaluates the severity of the risk to citizens who are exposed to various situations. Risk reduction is a great benefit to the public, which can be calculated in a cost-benefit analysis. The higher the probability of the event (P) or its consequences (C), the higher the risk (R) as expressed in the equation R = P x C.

DECISION-MAKING AND IMPACT APPROACHES Decision-making and impact approaches  include decision analysis, forecasting, and impact assessment. Decision analysis creates a formal method of structuring possible policy decisions. In this method, two or more alternatives are drawn in a “decision tree,” with each branch representing the consequences involved in choosing one of the alternatives. This process includes a degree of uncertainty, but can provide a quick, simple, objective mechanism that allows a busy policy maker to see the “big picture,” including unintended consequences that may occur.

Forecasting uses both quantitative and qualitative information about prior policy problems to produce factual information about a future policy state. Impact assessment can assume a number of forms, such as a jobs impact study, technology impact analysis, environmental impact study, or social impact analysis. With this method, policy analysts strive to predict what the consequences of adopting a policy proposal will be; it can sometimes involve a political push for a certain policy, resulting in outdated or inaccurate studies being conducted.

POLITICAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSISA  political feasibility analysis  measures the extent to which a policy change or new policy will be accepted by significant formal and informal policy actors, such as elected officials. No set formula exists for this type of analysis; policy analysts employing it identify policy actors involved and look at their past opinions and actions to determine their position on the issue involved. This method of analysis can help determine the saliency of an issue in the public opinion realm.

·

ETHICAL ANALYSISAn  ethical analysis  examines ethical or normative issues involved in policymaking. Some policy analysts veer away from this type of analysis and leave ethical issues to the policy advocacy community. However, a few instances in the past have illustrated the need for this type of analysis. One significant situation has been the use of embryos in scientific research. Many U.S. states have policies regulating or completely banning this practice on ethical grounds, while many people in the scientific community have argued that disallowing this type of research impedes scientific progress and potentially prevents the development of life-saving technologies.

·

Policy Analysis Players

Experts and scholars conduct policy analysis at all levels of government. Among the government organizations that are involved in this process is the  Congressional Research Service  (CRS), a component of the Library of Congress. The CRS shares its staff with congressional committees and members of Congress, and its experts assist at every stage of the legislative process. In its policy analysis, the CRS approaches a variety of complex topics and examines them from all sides. Current policies are analyzed by CRS staff, who present their reports on the impact of proposed policy alternatives to Congress. Congress relies on the CRS to help its members form sound policies and reach decisions on difficult issues (U.S. Library of Congress, 2017).

Another government organization that engages in important policy analysis is the  Government Accountability Office  (GAO). This independent, nonpartisan agency works for Congress to investigate how the federal government spends public dollars. The GAO’s mission is to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the public good by providing fact-based, objective, and timely information. The GAO’s work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees.

Some interest groups are also involved in public policy analysis. One example is the  American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , which lobbies Congress to support policies and issues that favor the nation of Israel. AIPAC closely monitors issues that affect the relationship between the United States and Israel, providing research and information for policymakers in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere. Its policy analysis has recently focused on issues such as the nuclear capabilities of Iran, foreign aid to Israel, and terrorist organizations that pose a threat to both nations.

Many government agencies have officers dedicated to public policy analysis. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, has the  Office of Planning , which deals with Evaluation and Analysis to assist the FDA in effectively protecting and promoting the public health. This office provides strategic policy and legislative leadership, planning, and data-driven analysis for this agency (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2017).

Think Tank Studies

A separate category includes  think tanks , such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and Brookings Institute. At the national level, think tanks are the most productive and well-known producers of policy analysis. Most think tanks are well funded and have scholars and experienced professionals in their employ. For a think tank to be successful, reputation and credibility are key.

ROLES

Think tanks have a number of roles. They help policymakers and citizens understand complex problems by providing independent research and analysis on policies and potential alternatives. It is also their role represent a range of ideologies so make sure you understand the bias that may be built in to their analysis.

· TYPES OF THINK TANKS

Think tank studies can be broken down into three types; scientific, professional, and political. Scientific studies focus on seeking the truth on issues without offering any recommendations to policy-makers. One common area for such studies is climate change.  Professional studies are done with minimal political slant. These are normally published by government organizations such as CRS and GAO. These studies analyze alternatives for solving problems, with practical value as the end goal. Finally, political studies are produced with a political agenda or ideological slant. These studies advocate and support policies preferred by the organization that funds them. A good example would be a report from the  National Rifle Association  (NRA). Before you read an NRA report, you would already be aware that it will likely favor gun rights. Review the  Brookings site . Where would you place this institution on a conservative to liberal continuum? Always think about that when revising findings from think tanks. Explore others in a tab on the top of the Public Administration Program Guide in the APUS library.

· LIMITATIONS OF THINK TANKS

Like all aspects of policy analysis, think tank studies have their limitations. Scientific studies may be too theoretical or technical for most decision makers. Professional studies may be too narrow due to time or resource constraints. And by their very nature, political studies may be too ideological or partisan and may lack analytical depth due to their biases. When policy-makers are assessing policy options, they are likely to refer to think tank studies on an issue for guidance. However, if they refer to any think tank studies, it is recommended that they balance the publications between liberal and conservative think tanks for a more comprehensive perspective.

Policy Implementation and Evaluation

· IMPLEMENTATION

After conclusions have been drawn from an analysis, the analysis is presented, implemented, and evaluated. Every policy analysis should take policy implementation, monitoring, and evaluation into consideration. In addition to proposing alternatives and recommendations, the policy analyst should sketch out an implementation plan for their preferred alternatives that considers relevant actors and their interests, required resources (and who might provide them), facilitators and barriers that may be encountered, and a reasonable time frame for implementation. The analyst might create a “best-case,” “worst-case,” and “most likely” scenario for each alternative.

Afterwards, maintaining the policy (making sure it operates smoothly after it is adopted) and monitoring it (detecting how implementation is going) require planning as well. Ongoing data about the policy is necessary, and the plan should address how this data can be generated in the course of policy maintenance. It may be obtained from records, documents, feedback from program clients and staff, ratings by peers, tests, observation, and physical evidence.

· EVALUATION

The last step in the policy process is evaluation. When evaluating a policy, the following questions should be asked:

· Was the problem correctly identified? Was the correct problem identified?

· Were any important aspects overlooked?

· Were any important data left out of the analysis? How did this influence the analysis, if at all?

· Were recommendations implemented properly?

· Is the policy having the desired effect?

· Are there any needs for modification, change, or re-design? What should be done differently next time?

Unintended consequences and particularly perverse results occur as the result of two types of failures: theory failure and implementation failure. A theory failure occurs when the policy was implemented as intended, but simply did not have the effect desired. For instance, a community adopts and strictly enforces a curfew to curb youth crime, and instead of falling the crime rate remains the same. An implementation failure occurs when the policy is not implemented as intended. For instance, the same curfew is adopted but no one enforces it, and therefore it has no effect at all.

If a policy is being monitored correctly, detecting whether or not it has been implemented properly should be simple.  Formative evaluation documents and analyzes a policy’s implementation, suggesting improvements as the process unfolds.  Summative  evaluation, conducted after implementation is complete, looks at whether or not the program is meeting its objectives and the reasons why it may be falling short of expectations.  

A number of methods for evaluation can be selected, based upon the conditions and circumstances. In a  before-and-after  evaluation, a policy is evaluated for the changes it has produced since its implementation. To control other possible influences on the outcome, the situation must be controlled. In a  with-and-without  evaluation, a policy is evaluated for the changes it produces in the target population, compared to another population without the policy. An after-only evaluation measures the extent to which the policy goals were achieved, compared to the state of affairs before the policy was implemented. In this type of evaluation, the situation is not controlled to exclude other possible influences on the outcome. A  time-series  evaluation tracks the changes produced by the policy over a long time period.

In some cases, evaluations may be looked down upon or even deemed unnecessary. A policy might be very controversial, or strong political interests may wish to see it succeed or fail.

There may be difficulties in measuring the program’s accomplishments. The policy actors involved may be uncooperative, or outside developments may affect the policy’s results. In order for a policy evaluation to actually be helpful, a few criteria must be met. Politicians, administrators, and all participants must accept the evaluation. Objectives should be measurable, and data should be made available. There must be multiple plausible evaluation methods, and the findings must be made widely available.

Take some time to review  this GAO Report  on recent findings that most federal managers lack evaluations on their programs.

Conclusion

 

Policy analysis is a key aspect of the policy formulation stage of policy-making. It involves basic steps such as defining the problem, constructing alternatives, evaluating evaluative criteria, assessing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. Groups such as government agencies, interest groups, and think tanks prepare policy analyses for policymakers to consider. A well-analyzed policy can be very effective and long-lasting, while one created in haste may result in great policy failures. Therefore, the policy analyst’s job is an imperative one.

 

References

AIPAC America's Pro-Israel Lobby. (2017). Issues. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.aipac.org/learn/issues

Chambers, D. E. (2000). Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dobelstein, A. W. (2002). Social welfare: Policy and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S.R. (2013). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

National Rifle Association (NRA). (2017). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://home.nra.org/

Popple, P., & Leighninger, L. (2004). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Program Evaluation Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making (Rep. No. GAO - 13 - 570). (2013). Report to Congressional Committees June 2013 Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655518.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017, June 1). Office of Planning. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/oppla/planning/default.htm

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2017, September 29). Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-Wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-743

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2017). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.gao.gov/

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service Careers. (2017). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

Quality. Independence. Impact. (2017, November 17). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.brookings.edu/